Say no to Theocracy

" CarrotTop says:
Hey, Ruckie,is Babtist a new offshoot of Baptist?"

On October 6th, 2008 ruckmanite says:

The only time a babtist is an offshoot of a baptist is if your sitting on the front row in church and he accidently spits in your ear while hes yelling at you.lol. If hes a good babtist preacher he does it on purpose and not as an accident because he knows the posers sit on the front pews.

Catholic Cardinal Hosius, President of the Council of Trent from 1545 to 1564, said,

"Were it not for the fact that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past 1200 years, they would swarm greater than all the reformers If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man or any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer and surer than those of the Anabaptist, since there have been none for the 1200 years past that have been more generally punished or that have been more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and have offered themselves to the most cruel sort of punishment than these people:'

Sir Isaac Newton said,

"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

SINCE THE APOSTLES

Ypeij and Dermout, eminent historians of the Dutch Reformed Church said,

"The Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community that has stood since the days of the apostles, and as a Christian society has preserved pure the doctrine of the Gospel through all the ages."

Alexander Campbell, founder of the Campbellites (Christian Church or Disciples of Christ) who rigorously opposed Baptists during the 19th century, wrote,

"The sentiments of Baptists and their practice of baptism from the apostolic age to the present, have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced."

Robert Barclay, a Quaker historian, says of Baptists,

"We shall afterward show that the rise of the Anabaptists took place prior to the Reformation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the continent of Europe, small hidden Christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the times of the apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of divine truth, and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church."

John Clark Ridpath, doubtlessly the greatest historian the world has ever produced and a Methodist by denomination, said,

"I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as 100 A.D., although without doubt there were Baptist churches then, as all Christians were then Baptists."

Mosheim, an outstanding Lutheran historian, said,

"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe, persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the modem Dutch Baptists... the origin of Baptists is lost in the remote depths of antiquity... the first century was a history of Baptists."

Zwingli, a Presbyterian co-laborer with John Calvin, said,

"The institution of the Anabaptists is no novelty, but for 1300 years has caused great trouble in the church."

"Crossing the Centuries" edited by William C. King, says,

"Of the Baptists it may be said that they are not reformers. These people. comprising bodies of Christian believers known under various names in different countries, are entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek churches, and have an unbroken continuity of existence from apostolic days down through the centuries Throughout this long perio they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country. disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, tortured and slain by the thousands; and yet they swerved not from their New Testament faith, doctrine, and adherence."

Spurgeon said,

"History has hitherto been written by our enemies, who never would have kept a single fact about us upon the record if they could have helped it, and yet it leaks out every now and then that certain poor people called Anabaptists (Anabaptist was the name given to Baptists before the 16th century. "Ana" means "again," but the entire name, Anabaptist, was applied to those who believed and practiced what Bible-believing, separatist Baptists do today) were brought up for condemnation. From the days of Henry VIII to those of Elizabeth, we hear of certain unhappy heretics who were hated of all men for the truth's sake that was in them. We read of poor men and women, with their garments cut short, turned out into the fields to perish in the cold, and anon of others who were burnt at Newington for the crime of Anabaptism. Long before your Protestants were known of, those horrible Anabaptists, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the 'one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.' No sooner did the visible church begin to depart from the Gospel than these m e n arose to keep fast by the good old way The priests and monks wished for peace and slumber, but there was always a Baptist or a Lollard tickling men's ears with Holy Scriptures, and calling their attention to the errors of the times. They were a poor persecuted tribe. The halter was thought to be too good for them. At times, ill-written history would have us think that they died out, so well had the wolf done his work on the sheep. Yet here we are, blessed and multiplied, and Newington sees other scenes from Sunday to Sunday As I think of the multitudes of your numbers and efforts, I can only say in wonder, 'What a growth!' As I think of the multitudes of our brethren in America, I can only say, 'What hath God wrought!' Our history forbids discouragements."

...the godless leader of your choice....

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...

this is from http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/whyhate.htm

this was preached by a real revivalist not a fraud like billy skull n bones graham. (which means you wont hear about this guy on the msm like you do billy).

WHY SINNERS HATE GOD.

JOHN XV. 25 -"They have hated me without a cause."

These are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. In my two former discourses on total depravity, I have endeavored to demonstrate, that all impenitent sinners, hate God supremely. And having, as I suppose, established this doctrine beyond controversy by an appeal to matters of fact; it now becomes a very solemn and important question, why sinners hate God?
If sinners have good reason for hating God, then they are not to blame for it; but if they have no good reason, or if they hate him when they ought to love him; then they have incurred great guilt by their enmity to God.

II. Sinners do hate God, because they are supremely selfish; and he is, as he ought to be, infinitely opposed to their supreme object of pursuit. The first thing that we discover, in the conduct of little children, is, the desire of self-gratification. At what period of their existence, their desire becomes selfishness, it is impossible for us to say. That a proper desire to gratify an appetite for food, and drink, and all our constitutional appetites, is not sinful, is manifest. These appetites, have no moral character; and their proper indulgence, is not sinful. But whenever their indulgence is inordinate, or whenever the indulgence of our appetites, comes in collision with the requirements of God; whenever, and wherever we indulge our constitutional propensities, when we are under an obligation to abstain from an indulgence, in every such case, we sin; for in all these cases we are selfish; we make our own indulgence, the rule of our duty, instead of the requirement of God. We consent to indulge ourselves, at the public expense, and in a way that is inconsistent with the glory of God, and the highest good of his universe. This is the essence, and the history of all sin. Now, at whatever period of our existence, we first prefer self-gratification, to our duty to God, when we first make self-gratification the supreme object of choice; at what particular moment self-gratification comes to be the ruling principle of our conduct, and the highest aim of our lives, it is perhaps impossible for us to determine.

But whenever this may be, this is the commencement of our depravity. It is our first moral act. It constitutes our first moral character. Every thing, that has preceded this, has had no moral character at all. The Bible assures us, that this occurs so early in our history, that it may be said, that "the wicked are estranged from the womb. That they go astray, as soon as they be born, speaking lies." This language is not, of course, to be understood literally, because we do not speak at all, as soon as we are born: but the wicked speak lies, as soon as they do speak. Behold, says the Psalmist, "I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." This language also, is certainly figurative; for it cannot be possible, that the substance of a conceived fetus should be sin! This would contradict God's own definition of sin. He says, "sin is a transgression of the law;" but the law prescribes a rule of action, and not a mode of existence. If the substance of a conceived fetus is sin: if the child itself, previous to birth, is a sin, than God has committed it. All that can possibly be meant, by this, and similar passages without making utter nonsense of the word of God; without arraying different passages in everlasting contradiction to each other, is, that we were always sinners from the commencement of ourmoral existence. From the earliest moment of the exercise of moral agency. And to insist upon the literal understanding of such passages as these, is the most dangerous perversion of the Bible. Adopt the principle of interpretation, that insists upon these passages being understood literally, and apply it, in the exposition of the whole Bible, and you will prove, not only that sin and holiness, are substances, but that God is, a material being. Indeed, here has been the great error, on the subject of depravity. This grand rule of interpretation, that all language is to be understood, according to the nature of the subject to which it is applied, has been overlooked, and the same meaning has often been attached to the same word, whether applied to matter, or to mind. For instance, to set aside God's definition of sin, as consisting entirely in the transgression of law, and bring in those figurative expressions, that would seem, unexplained by God's own definition, to represent sin, as consisting in something else, than voluntary transgression; is to array the Scripture in irreconcilable contradiction to itself, by overlooking one of the most important rules of Biblical interpretation.

It is to trifle with the word of God. It is tempting the Holy Ghost. It is a stupid, not to say a willful perversion of the truth of God. Now, the great reason why sinners are opposed to God, is not, that there is any defect in their nature, rendering their opposition physically necessary, but because he is irreconcilably opposed to their selfishness. He is infinitely opposed to the supreme end of their pursuit, that is, to their obtaining happiness, in a way, that is inconsistent with HIS glory, and the happiness of other beings.

The supreme end, at which they aim, is to promote their own happiness, in a way that is inconsistent with the public good. To this he is infinitely opposed. As they have an unholy end, in view, the means which they use , to accomplish this end, are, of course, as wicked as the end. God is therefore, as much opposed to the means, which they use, as to the end, which they are endeavoring to accomplish by those means. These means make up the history of their lives. They are all designed, directly, or indirectly, to affect the all absorbing object, at which the sinner aims; the promotion of his own happiness. God is therefore, as he ought to be, sincerely and conscientiously, and infinitely opposed to every thing they do or say, while in a state of inpenitency. They would make every thing subordinate to their own private interests. He insists upon it, that they shall seek their happiness, in a way that is consistent with, and calculated to promote the happiness of the whole. This is after all the only way in which, in the very nature of things they can be happy. He accordingly sets himself with full purpose of heart, to defeat every attempt which they make to obtain happiness in their own way. He is the irreconcilable adversary of all their selfish schemes. He embitters every cup of selfish joy, "turns their" selfish "council headlong; and brings down their violent dealing upon their own pate."

Thus you see that sinners hate God, because he is so holy. While they remain selfish, and he is infinitely benevolent, their characters, their designs, their desires, and all their ways are diametrically opposed to his, and his to theirs. They are direct opposites; and until they change, it will always be true as he has said, "I loathe them, and they abhor me."

Holiness, is a regard to right. God requires upon infinite penalties, that every moral being in the universe should do and feel and say, that which is perfectly right; less than this, he cannot require without injustice. But sinners are unwilling to do right. They would be at liberty to consult their own private interest in every thing, and they of course consider God as an enemy, because he insists upon their unqualified obedience to the law of right, however perfectly it counteracts their selfish schemes.

Again. Sinners hate God because he is so good.He is good and does good, and moves on in the promotion of the public interest in a way that often overturns and scatters to the winds, all their selfish projects and Babel-towers upon which they are attempting to climb to heaven. His heart is so set upon doing good, that in the prosecution of his great design, he has often overthrown families and nations that stood in his way; and once, he overwhelmed a world of sinners in a flood to prevent their mischief, and bring the world back into such a state, that, through the introduction of the law and Gospel, he might reclaim mankind, and save a multitude from hell.

Baldwin critisized and rejected Bush's faith-based initiatives, you know the issue Obama wants to EXPAND. Judging from actions, not words, Bush, McCain and Obama would be much more theocratic than Baldwin can ever imagine to be. Period!

~ I like his passion and conviction. No one else seems to have the dedication to stand up to fascism. I think Chuck would be the man for the job.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It is your duty as loyal Americans to Shut up."– Bill O'Reily

http://www.revolutionbroadcasting.com/

************

"Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave fast enough to be a new source of energy independence."~ samthurston

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/